Hom entered into a lease with tenant.  The lease granted extensive rights to lenders to tenant, including performing tenant’s obligations and assuming its rights under the lease.  Tenant sued Hom who cross-complained against tenant and Petrou, a lender to tenant.  As part of his settlement with tenant, Hom dismissed his cross-complaint against Petrou as well.  Petrou was awarded attorney fees under the lease’s attorney fee clause.  Hom appealed.  Affirmed.  Although Petrou could not be deemed the prevailing party on contract claims under Civ. Code 1717(b)(2) because the dismissal was pursuant to settlement, the lease’s attorney fees clause controlled as to Hom’s tort claims.  That clause was broad enough to cover tort claims.  It also was broadly enough worded to permit recovery by a third party beneficiary such as Petrou, a lender to the tenant.  Third party beneficiaries are not per se barred from recovering attorney fees pursuant to contract, and this attorney fee clause was broad enough, when interpreted in light of the lease extensive provisions concerning the rights of lenders to tenant to permit such recovery.